Jones and Others v Sutherland and Another (478/2018) [2019] ZASCA 146 (14 November 2019)

Jones and Others v Sutherland and Another (478/2018) [2019] ZASCA 146 (14 November 2019)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants' right of residence was lawfully terminated in accordance with section 8(1) of ESTA, and all procedural requirements under sections 9 and 11 were met. The court found that the appellants had no reasonable expectation of renewal of the lease, had been given ample notice, and had opportunities to make representations. The respondents' conduct, though unacceptable, did not entitle the appellants to indefinite occupation, especially given their own failure to pay rent and the absence of historical attachment to the property. The social worker's reports confirmed that suitable alternative accommodation was available and that continued...

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 146
Parties
Appellant: Cedric Morgan Jones; Appellant: Diane Morgan Jones; Appellant: Kerenza Morgan Jones; Respondent: Shawn Sutherland; Respondent: Julia Sutherland
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2019
Case Number
478/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court
Judges
Maya, Tshiqi, Mokgohloa, Nicholls, Dolamo
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Procedure, Just and Equitable Termination, Alternative Accommodation, Constitutional Right to Dignity, Balancing of Interests
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Procedure Just and Equitable Termination Alternative Accommodation Constitutional Right to Dignity +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cedric Morgan Jones

Appellant

Diane Morgan Jones

Appellant

Kerenza Morgan Jones

Appellant

Shawn Sutherland

Respondent

Julia Sutherland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the appellants' right of residence under ESTA was lawful and just and equitable.
  2. 2 Whether the procedural requirements for eviction under ESTA were met.
  3. 3 Whether suitable alternative accommodation was available to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants' right of residence was lawfully terminated in accordance with section 8(1) of ESTA, and all procedural requirements under sections 9 and 11 were met. The court found that the appellants had no reasonable expectation of renewal of the lease, had been given ample notice, and had opportunities to make representations. The respondents' conduct, though unacceptable, did not entitle the appellants to indefinite occupation, especially given their own failure to pay rent and the absence of historical attachment to the property. The social worker's reports confirmed that suitable alternative accommodation was available and that continued...